digg

Join DiggAbout

Introducing Digg Dialogg!
Check out the first Digg Dialogg with Nancy Pelosi. More guests to be announced soon!

Gonzales: There Is No Constitutional Right To Habeas Corpus (VIDEO)

thinkprogress.org — Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales had a sharp debate over whether habeas corpus right is granted in the Constitution. It is -- link has the text from the Constitution.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • JCSaint, on 10/12/2007, -7/+184this is ***** ridiculous.
    • rockforever, on 10/12/2007, -5/+182SPECTER: You may be treading on your interdiction and violating common sense, Mr. Attorney General.

      PWNED.
    • jdb252, on 10/12/2007, -5/+133You're absolutely right. Article 1, Section 9 of the United States Constitution:
      "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

      Thanks for keeping up on the law, Attorney General Gonzales.
    • Lixie, on 10/12/2007, -5/+104Sounds like Gonzalez is splitting hairs, and stretching the language to suit his agenda. I believe his whole argument is rooted in the Constitutional language, "The privilege of habeas corpus..." rather than, "The right to habeas corpus...."

      It's a weak argument that is repudiated by 230 years of judicial precedent.
    • hode, on 10/12/2007, -13/+152"Wake up and smell the Hitler."
    • mcraigw, on 10/12/2007, -27/+19
      The U.S. Constitution applies to U.S. citizens, but does the U.S. Constitution apply to non-citizens? Specifically non-citizens that are captured outside the U.S. borders while engaging in combat against U.S. troops, and then imprisoned at the U.S. Naval base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba?
    • caketank, on 10/12/2007, -4/+30@mcraigw: The Constitution applies to everyone, except where otherwise noted. Look to case law wherever it's not clear to you whether Constitutional protections extend only to citizens or to aliens as well-- the courts have had plenty of time to hash most of it out.
    • mcraigw, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16
      So what exactly does it mean when it says "unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."? I (obviously) didn't major in English or constitutional law. What would be some examples be of when "the public safety may require it"?
    • kremvax, on 10/12/2007, -8/+34"The U.S. Constitution applies to U.S. citizens..."

      Ask what's left of US Citizen Jose Padilla about how well the constitution is being applied and enforced by this administration.
    • repins, on 10/12/2007, -29/+8@jdb252 check your quote again, it is a privilage not a right big difference when you talk about the constitution.
    • repins, on 10/12/2007, -9/+29The U.S. Constitution does not apply to US citizens it outlines the powers or lack there of that the Federal Government has.
    • tidu, on 10/12/2007, -31/+15I'm sorry guys, there isn't actually a right. I, like many others, think it should be, but it is described as a "privilege" in the Constitution... if you guys wouldn't be so fast to bash whatever these guys say and actually look it up, you might be singing a different tune.

      "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

      Privilege is NOT, I repeat, NOT. a right. You can't argue that. You can argue, though, when a case of invasion/rebellion exists.

      This whole line justifies the Bush administration's doing. I agree with all of you, though. They go way too far.
    • donkeydrop, on 10/12/2007, -30/+3Nice job by Specter of misrepresenting the previous case and twisting Gonzales words.

      This case is about NON-US citizens who have never even visited the US. The point that Gonzales made was that the Constitution does not address whether such a person would have a right to habeas corpus, and the Supreme Court case as Gonzales again correctly said, addressed a different issue. They decided that Congress could not make a law which prevented the court from deciding whether someone has a right to habeas corpus. This is not at all the same as saying that someone does have such a right. Apparently Specter is now so senile that he doesn't understand the difference.
    • soogy, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4@mcraigw

      That means when the Mexicans start invading, your right to habeas corpus may be revoked.
    • ahknight, on 10/12/2007, -9/+5"... unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

      Folks, I think it's pretty clear that he's saying that he believes (or was told to believe) that the public safety requires it be forfeit "in times like these".
    • Yoshi39, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9So what exactly does it mean when it says "unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."? I (obviously) didn't major in English or constitutional law. What would be some examples be of when "the public safety may require it"?
      English is my third language so I might be missinterpreting but as I see it is says that to suspen heabus corpus there has to be an invasion (or rebellion) AND the public saftey must require it.
    • tidu, on 10/12/2007, -11/+5The question is whether they think we were actually "invaded" during 9/11 or not. Technically we were, but they still shouldn't be going this far.
    • ernkush, on 10/12/2007, -11/+3@caketank

      Care to provide evidence for that statement? I am quite sure that the Constitution applies to US citizens only and partially to permenant residents/refugees. Otherwise, what is the point of having US citizenship?
    • ernkush, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14@yoshi

      Abraham Lincoln suspended it during the Civil War since that was in effect a rebellion.
    • djlosch, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8hurray for lots of people talking about something they know nothing about. due process, equal protection, privileges and immunities and many other rights granted in the bill of RIGHTS as AMENDMENTS to the constitution, and many articles in the constitution itself are applicable to all people, regardless of nationality, when they are being handled by the federal, state, or even municipal governments, and even sometimes private entities.

      i don't claim to be a con law expert, but anyone taking con law in law school knows this (or will miserably fail the bar).
    • faskippy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13Stop separating the words "invasion" and "the public safety may require it". With all of the other "safety" quotes outlined for us in the Constitution, I don't believe anyone designing it meant anything like 9/11. To say they did, or to twist it around to suit your kind of logic is law whoring. Nothing less. Not what our founding fathers wanted. Keep in mind, all of Gonzales' previous statements, and GW's "it's just a goddam piece of paper, and you know exactly where their mind is. Up their ass with the rest of their heads.
    • sirloin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16The only reason the term privilege is used is so that they can suspend habeous in times of invasion or rebellion.
      Privileges can be suspended, rights are inherent and can not be.
    • Aldus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9hell in a hand basket, that's where we are all headed
    • floorman56, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Sounds like Gonzalez is splitting hairs

      ALL lawyers split hairs!!

      Take this for example
      A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

      But LOTS of people will tell you that's not what you think it means.
    • iceperson, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3"The only reason the term privilege is used is so that they can suspend habeous in times of invasion or rebellion.
      Privileges can be suspended, rights are inherent and can not be."

      In other words, there is no Constitutional "right" to Habeas Corpus...
    • david76, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7In case anyone wants to read the case to which I think they're referring (Hamdi v. Rumsfeld):

      http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-6696.ZO.html

      Some relevant portions:
      "Though they reach radically different conclusions on the process that ought to attend the present proceeding, the parties begin on common ground. All agree that, absent suspension, the writ of habeas corpus remains available to every individual detained within the United States. U.S. Const., Art. I, §9, cl. 2 (“The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it”). Only in the rarest of circumstances has Congress seen fit to suspend the writ. At all other times, it has remained a critical check on the Executive, ensuring that it does not detain individuals except in accordance with law."

      "In the absence of such process [military tribunal], however, a court that receives a petition for a writ of habeas corpus from an alleged enemy combatant must itself ensure that the minimum requirements of due process are achieved."
    • caketank, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@emkush: You may be quite sure, but you are quite wrong.

      I refer you to the Constitution itself (which uses terms like "all persons", "people", and "citizens" when expressing scope) and to Google, where in about thirty seconds I found the following and more:

      http://www.answers.com/topic/aliens-rights-of
      http://www.internationaloffice.duke.edu/FAQ/ConstitutionalRights.htm
      http://www.slate.com/id/1008367/

    • tyho, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2The only morons are here on Digg and bashing away at Attorney General Gonzales when he is speaking the truth as all lawyers that specialize in constitutional law understand it to be. Who knows more about laws and precedence, a lawyer or a politician?
      This from a far left-wing website that I wouldn't trust to tell me the time of day. You think there may have been more to the discussion that Think Progress decided to cut off for their own agenda?
      The sheer ignorance on Digg is really depressing.
    • ScionAltera, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15Please note: I am not a lawyer. I am a computer programmer. Convoluted logic is what I do for a living.

      The constitution says that habeas corpus is a privilege that cannot be taken away (except in an invasion/rebellion where the public safety requires it).

      Gonzales claims that the constitution does not grant habeas corpus. It merely states that habeas corpus cannot be taken away if you have it. His position must be (for his argument to make any sense at all) that the prisoners in gitmo never had habeas corpus to begin with because it was not granted to them by the constitution... so the US never took it away from them because they never had it in the first place.

      Senator Specter takes the position that because the constitution says habeas corpus cannot be taken away, everybody must have it.

      I happen to agree with Specter because I believe that is the spirit in which that portion of the constitution was written. I don't think anybody would have written that sentence without the (admittedly) unstated assumption that everybody gets habeus corpus. The unstated assumption is supported by the supreme court case that Senator Specter references, which says that the prisoners in gitmo are granted habeus corpus by the constitution. From a literal perspective, Gonzales may be correct if he can convince anyone that the constitution does not grant habeus corpus (and merely prevents it being taken away). I would like to believe that any judge would agree with the senator in this case.
    • tyho, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3Actually caketank you are wrong and ernkush is correct. Did you even take a look at the links you provided? Here let me help you:

      "The Constitution refers to three kinds of people to whom the Constitution applies: citizens, persons, and the people. Those distinctions mean that aliens have some rights, but not all. In looking at Constitutional Rights, note first to whom the discussion applies. But remember also that legal scholars often disagree on exactly how and to whom the Constitution applies."

      and
      "If you entered the U.S. illegally and were, therefore, not properly "admitted," then some of the protections do not apply to you."

      Gee... not so cut and dry as you, and others, would like it to be.
    • caketank, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@tyho:

      Jesus Christ. Seriously?

      I said:

      "The Constitution applies to everyone, except where otherwise noted. Look to case law wherever it's not clear to you whether Constitutional protections extend only to citizens or to aliens as well-- the courts have had plenty of time to hash most of it out."

      You just quoted:

      "The Constitution refers to three kinds of people to whom the Constitution applies: citizens, persons, and the people. Those distinctions mean that aliens have some rights, but not all. In looking at Constitutional Rights, note first to whom the discussion applies. But remember also that legal scholars often disagree on exactly how and to whom the Constitution applies."

      In other words, the Constitution makes distinctions, and explicitly notes when it is talking about everyone vs. talking about citizens. In *other* words, exactly what I said in the first damn place.

      You also quoted:

      "If you entered the U.S. illegally and were, therefore, not properly "admitted," then some of the protections do not apply to you."

      Hey, look at that! I also said that some protections to not extend to aliens, and that you should look to case law if it's not clear which ones. It's almost as if I said exactly what the references you and I both cited said.
    • kuzotz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@mcraigw

      HAve you read the constitution.

      There are parts in it that says citizens, and parts in it that says people. Meaning everyone. The US constitution was written to support a merchant country. WE do business. So non citizens have rights in our country also. IF you never knew that.
    • oldman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Fire him! Write your Congress People Fire him! Can't Fire Him? Shoot Him. Have him read the ninth Amendment! then Fire Him!

      Signed
      Scott
    • totallydismayed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@mcraigw

      Did you know it is common for illegal aliens to challenge their deportation via habeas corpus? If the government already recognizes the right for an alien to claim habeas corpus, why are we even having this discussion?


    • SelfAbortion, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@mcraigw
      "So what exactly does it mean when it says "unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."? I (obviously) didn't major in English or constitutional law. What would be some examples be of when "the public safety may require it"?"

      The main example is "whenever they damn well feel like it."
    • edverb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3///// The U.S. Constitution applies to U.S. citizens, but does the U.S. Constitution apply to non-citizens? /////

      @ mcraigw:

      "The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times and under all circumstances."

      US Supreme Court, Ex Parte Milligan: http://www.constitution.org/ussc/071-002a.htm
    • Locke2053, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0FIRE THAT MAN! He is demonstrably inept.
    • williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@mcraigw

      The depth of your ignorance is revealed by the fact that the Constitution does not "grant" rights.

      You HAVE rights, with or without a Constitution.

      The Constitution LISTS all the things government is ALLOWED to do, plus some explicit restrictions, like not suspending Habeas Corpus.

      Alberto Gonzales is a criminal dictator's sniveling enabler. I would not piss on him if he were burning to death.
    • rodgerdodger5, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Go back a ways to the Declaration of Independence. Can you say "unalienable rights?" I knew you could. Now..go look up UNALIENABLE in the dictionary.

      Now go watch these. They are VERY interesting. Start at number 1. Grab a copy of the Constitution off the internet and read along. You will feel different after watching. You can just see the happiness come back into a person when they discover what the Constitution and the Bill of Rights says. Our founding fathers were geniuses!

      http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=constitution+class+7&hl=en


    • Loonacy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@williamdyer
      That's the best comment I've read on this article so far. When I watched the video it made me sick to think that this person believes people don't have innate rights, and only have the rights granted by the constitution. He's supposed to be an expert on this! People in high places listen to him and his opinion, and take his advice. With him working on faulty assumptions, it's no wonder the people in charge have been making so many mistakes.

      As an aside, Sen. Specter seemed to think that the Constitution granted Habeas Corpus as well. He had the spirit right, but for the wrong reasons.
    • bobthebruce123, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4People seem to be forgetting a crucial point here. Yes, the constitution applies mainly to the federal government and what they can and can't do. However, many of the "founding fathers" did not want a Bill of Rights for fear they might forget something very important. This is important to remember, because the 10th amendment reserves rights to the states and the PEOPLE. In other words, if the congress is not expressly granted a power, the people have an adulterated right to it.
    • vequalsitimesz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Finally, in 1866, after the war, the Supreme Court officially restored habeas corpus in Ex-parte Milligan, ruling that military trials in areas where the civil courts were capable of functioning were illegal.

      key word "restored"

    • Corrosionx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1For the record, the Constitution only applies to the government, outlining what THEY can and cannot do.

      The Founding Fathers understood governments didn't grant men rights, but their Creator (whoever that is) did.
  • Yankeluh, on 10/12/2007, -7/+72This guy was a ***** moron here in Texas. Where did he get his law degree, off the internet?
    • MysticSavage, on 10/12/2007, -5/+30Hollywood Upstairs Medical College also has a law division.
    • DarkLance, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14Presidential Interdiction?

      In fact, he may be the epotomie of lawyer-dom, ig. the ability to arguee well beyond common sense. See the Chewbacca Defense: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_Defense
    • aresef, on 10/12/2007, -6/+27No, but he stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night.

      /Thank you, I'm here all week.
    • DrHockey, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2I believe he attended the University of Rangoon, then got his law degree after attending assorted night classes at the Knoxville, Tennessee College Of Faith Healing.
    • hilbertspaceboy, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1Gonzales is a greasy, taco-slinging mexican.

      Of course he doesn't respect our Constitution.
    • colklink, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@hilbertspaceboy
      You know, I live in San Antonio and I have yet to see a single "taco slinging" Mexican. I might be going out on a limb here, but I think you might have a few misconceptions about other cultures and the activities in which they partake.
    • KyleGoetz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1He got his law degree from Harvard. Shows you how much that college knows ;)
    • littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Attorney General Alberto Gonzales had a sharp debate over whether habeas corpus right is granted in the Constitution."

      What? Does he think just saying it's not there makes it so? This shows you the Arrogance of this Administration.
  • shawnfassett, on 10/12/2007, -9/+57Impeach the bastard. Is it really a surprise that he doesn't understand that the right of habeus corpus would then be implied?
    • WarlordZsinj, on 10/12/2007, -33/+6Do you even know what impeachment means? All it means is to formally charge with a crime. The man hasn't committed a crime, so how can you impeach him??
    • Gerz1219, on 10/12/2007, -8/+61But he has committed a crime. He's denied the writ of habeas corpus, in violation of his duty to uphold and defend the constitution.
    • LegalSatire, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16Where is the rest of this interview, after the "um"? That clearly wasn't the end of the discussion. You can't leave it on a cliffhanger like that!

      Did he recoup? Did the senator grill him more? There's gotta be some goodies after the cut.
    • Darko, on 10/12/2007, -6/+40There's nothing after the "um". Specter was immediately hauled off and thrown in jail.
    • tenrec, on 10/12/2007, -8/+0Never mind
    • TheWedge, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Whoever is digging down Darko doesn't really understand what exactly he meant by that...
    • FTLJohnson, on 10/12/2007, -13/+8Do you even understand that it's the "writ of habeas corpus" and not the RIGHT of Habeus Corpus?

      Do you understand the differences between a right and a privilege?

      Not that I support Gonzalez... He's a jackass... but going around calling it a right is just plain ignorant.
    • LegalSatire, on 10/12/2007, -4/+24Sure, you can call it a privilege, that's fine. But it has a very clearly delineated set of stipulations for its removal, none of which have been met. In all respects, it functions like a right, except in those circumstances.

      You can argue nomenclature, but the end result is the same: there is no justification for its removal. Period.
    • einsteinx2, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14FTLJohnson: Do you understand what the words "shall not be suspended" mean? I dont give a ***** if it's a writ or a right it is still a protection granted by the constitution. ***** the word games.

      BTW: "WRIT - A judicial order. A formal written command, issued from the court, requiring the performance of a specific act. A mandatory precept issued by the authority, and in the name of the sovereign or the state, for the purpose of compelling the defendant to do something therein mentioned."

      Note the words "mandatory" and "requiring the performance of a specific act". Hence, the "writ of Habeas Corpus" is a mandatory rule set down by the constitution.
    • tidu, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2@einsteinx2

      Just because a writ that is a privilege is mandatory, doesn't mean that it's actually mandatory. It's a conditional statement; it's mandatory if the privilege is present.

      The REAL question is whether the administration is employing the term invasion correctly. Technically, we were invaded during 9/11, so through technicalities they're allowed to do what they want. So until they shuffle on out of the white house, we can't do much about it except change the consitution or have a court case...
    • faskippy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"There's nothing after the "um". Specter was immediately hauled off and thrown in jail."

      I now ask for a spew warning. God, Coke is sticky.
    • FTLJohnson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@einstein

      Do you understand what the word "unless" means. Read that part after the "shall not be suspended" That whole part that comes after the word UNLESS.

      Also, read where I said I didn't agree with Gonzolez, and in the same sentence called him a jackass.

      Thanks for your reading comprehension... good day.
    • Memitim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9My fellow Americans,

      Why in the ***** do people keep saying that we've been invaded? Yes, people from another country came over and killed a bunch of people living in this country. Its a crime and its a travesty, but it isn't anything close to resembling a ***** invasion. Let me see if we can wake just one of them up.

      To those who think that suspending habeas corpus might be reasonable,

      Is it the fear that you feel when you think that a small group of crazy Saudis might be waiting on your next flight that makes you want to suspend freedom, prosperity, and even simple decency? Because those are some of the sort of things that you suspend when there is an invasion. Because then everyone is part of the fight. Then it makes sense to serious consider whether these things that we as Americans possess that makes this country so damned special should be put on hold in order to deal with a threat that could destroy the nation. But this isn't then, and there isn't an invasion going on. Some crazy assholes with too much money and an overdose of religious indoctrination decided to kill a bunch of us. But they were not, and will never be, any kind of threat to the United States of America.

      If the thought of getting killed by some foreign extremist scares you badly enough to want to even consider restricting basic American freedoms then I really don't know how you are able to function when the reality is that you are far more likely to be killed by an American citizen than you are a foreigner. If its really that bad for you, petition the government to offer tax credits for bomb shelters, get yourself a well stocked hidey-hole, and live the dream of the paranoid while leaving the rest of us the ***** alone.
    • AnotherBrian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Re: tidu

      You're right, we were invaded on Sept. 11 2001. However that invasion ended on Sept. 11 2001 when all the invaders where killed.
  • sbassin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+65"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."

    If we don't all stay on the ball about this, the government will gladly take away as much of our freedom as it can. The mainstream media has been pretty much useless when it comes to defending freedom lately.
    • SlappyMc, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6where do we start?
    • rockforever, on 10/12/2007, -1/+28You vote.
    • WarlordZsinj, on 10/12/2007, -23/+2Yeah, the people want to take away the peoples rights.....sure....
    • iancgi, on 10/12/2007, -5/+28On electronic voting machines owned by companies that pay for top republican election campaigns. We lost the right to vote in 2000, when they made us believe somehow an electronic voting machine with no paper trail was more reliable then the old fashion way.
    • headchecked, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Why the mainstream media bashing?
      What about USA Today being the first to disclose the NSA's massive telephone call records database?
      The New York Times' discovery of the bank database mining projects: (They also won the 2006 national reporting Pulitzer for :writing about secret domestic eavesdropping programs.
      It was the dreaded mainstream media's accounts of how the Department of Justice's security letters were being used to conduct searches without court approval, that led to a newly-created program this past week where the FISA court would have some oversight of the security letters process.
    • mcraigw, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Where do we start? I suppose we could have a rebellion, but then they could suspend our privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. We could also leave the country for other countries where then don't suspend our privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
    • Smoove, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."


      Don't forget, "The tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants."
    • faskippy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I went to the Texas Bar Assn. website, downloaded a form to file a grievance, made extra copies for my friends, etc. Gonna try a "file a grievance, I'll buy you a beer" party at the local pub. Even if it doesn't go anywhere, it will still open some eyes in my area.
    • floorman56, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Smoove

      quote it right

      The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

      you forgot the blood of patriots. This means fighting for freedom isn't safe sometimes.
      Take 9/11 The right to privacy of some of the hijackers was more important than the lives of the people who died. this is why at the time the CIA and the FBI couldn't talk to one another Everyone was worred about the CIA spying on americans
      Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
    • BESTenemy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3 The only time we hear incriminating stories surfacing is when one of the scumbags who's in on the deal doesn't get his share and decides to screw the rest of the syndicate over.

      Either way we - the citizens, get screwed.
    • Smoove, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@floorman

      I'm not sure which way you're trying to go here, since you contradict yourself: you argue on one hand that we shouldn't sacrifices ANY of our liberty; then you seem to make the usual right-wing rant that a little more government intrusion would have prevented 9/11. Which is it?

      (I know--government should only harass the BAD people. And they can identify the BAD people infallibly, leaving the rest of us alone, because...? God slips them the word on a red phone?)
  • cdlavalle, on 10/12/2007, -5/+76Treasonous bastard. Look at that smug little smirk on his constitution raping face. The democratic congress should take all of these adminisration shenanigans and arguments and use them to shore up the constitution where it is "weak". I am sure they would get huge support from both sides of the aisle if they wanted to put an even more explicit right to habeus corpus as an amendment to the constituion. There is probably at least a half a dozen other places where this same thinking can be applied. Have turn this nightmare negative into a positive for our posterity. Protect our grandchildren's grandchildren to smug legal loophole worms like we have "serving" us right now.
    • Popdmb, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16"constitution raping face"

      ROFL.
    • brstilson, on 10/12/2007, -19/+6It's not funny
    • Popdmb, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11@ brstilson

      It seems he took your sense of humor before our habeus corpus.
    • FTLJohnson, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Things like this will never change until good people are willing to risk life and limb to make sure guys like this are either locked away, or treated with the same punishments that would have faced the founding fathers had they failed at their task which they fought so bravely for. Guys like this, who trample upon that effort, should face what the founding fathers risked, and should be shot, hung, drawn and quartered, disemboweled, and then have their entrails burned.
    • Pyro979, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@ brstilson

      It's a little bit funny
    • kuzotz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1meaning a lot of BS is going to have to happen until its the last straw which means we'll be under a complete police state. WEll the white americans will finally be under it. Minorities already deal with a police state scenario. Its pretty mild though.
  • brlittle, on 10/12/2007, -6/+35Perhaps someone should just habeas his corpus off to Gitmo. *****.
  • heaintheavy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+48All right Bush supporters, even YOU guys have to admit this is a bit troubling...
    • UberNick, on 10/12/2007, -8/+20The only ones this should be troubling to is the terrorists

      /sarcasm
    • Cronus6, on 10/12/2007, -6/+18*crickets*
    • naldwell, on 10/12/2007, -18/+15Don't worry, law abiding citizens. If you've done nothing wrong you've got nothing to fear.
    • emiles, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Unless the government gains more and more power, then just arbitrarily decides it doesn't like us and then throws us in jail without telling us what we did wrong.

      Your comment misses the whole point of a discussion about habeas corpus.
    • Smoove, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Note: I do believe naldwell left off a /sarcasm tag.
    • mcduckov, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5There are Bush supporters? Judging by the polls it is a pretty small group. I think there are people who would support the President no matter what because the office commands that allegiance. But even among those people I don't think there are many who are truly fans of the current occupant of the office and his abilities.
    • SelfAbortion, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@xen0blue
      No, but it's a Bush appointee and as such, it can be reasonably expected that the Bush appointee was put there because he reflects the opinions and desired policies of Mr. Bush.
  • JCSaint, on 10/12/2007, -2/+25From Salon.com...

    By Gonzales' logic, after all, the Constitution doesn't offer an "express grant" of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms or the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures; it simply says that the government shall not take those rights away.

    http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2007/01/19/gonzales/index.html
    • halavais, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Well, at the time those amendments were passed, they *didn't* provide a guarantee of such rights. All they said was that the feds wouldn't abridge them. States were welcome to outlaw sedition or other forms of speech, or outlaw guns, etc.

      Actually, given that reasoning, it's not completely out of the realm of possibilities (although certainly common sense) that the same kind of argument could be applied here: that where habeas exists, the government won't do anything to abridge it--but that they do not guarantee it as a right.
    • OnAnyMouse, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Strictly speaking, he is accurate, but incorrect. The Constitution RECOGNIZES rather than GRANTS rights. Taken in context with the Declaration of Independence:

      "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..."
      http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/doi/text.html

      People have (for better or worse) declared themselves free from religion, but that does not mean that they have no creator. Whether they believe that their creator was Jehova, FSM, or primordial ooze, Mom and Dad, Mom and Frozen pop, Sperm and Egg, a glob of organic material, sentient, unsentient , willing or not, there was SOME precursor to their being. People are free to call that (WHATEVER THE HECK IT IS) their creator. But they have rights, regardless of whether those right are recognized or not.

      Certain regimes have denied rights to millions of other peoples based on gender, race, and religion. The denied rights still exist, even though they are denied. For instance, Jewish people during the Holocaust had no less right to life (though that right was violently and dishonestly denied) than they had in any other place and any other time in history.
    • haggie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16Kinda reminds me of the Pink Panther scene:

      Man: "Does your dog bite?"
      Clouseau: No
      Man pets dog. Dog bites man.
      Man: You said your dog doesn't bite!
      Clouseau: That is not my dog.

      Man: So government can't take away my right to free speech?
      Gonzales: Correct!
      Man: Ok, I choose to excercise it. Down with Bush!
      Gonzales: Arrest that man, he's a terrorist.
      Man: What about free speech?
      Gonzales: Government can't take away the right to free speech that doesn't mean you have the right of free speech!

      Also, insert a conversation between Yossarian and Doc Daneeka.
    • pauleric, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4^^ OnAnyMouse speaks the truth. <grump-old-man>What are they teaching kids these days?</grumpy-old-man> The Constitution does not grant any rights at all. I am a free man, no matter what country I live in, or how large and intrusive the government gets.
    • groovychk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It's troubling to think that AG actually might know the Constitution and what it actually means but is deliberately twisting it for Executive Branch purposes.
      The Constitution doesn't give rights. In relation to rights It says what the FedGov can't do. The Bill of Rights goes even further in clarifying what the FedGov can't do.
      Saying that the Constitution doesn't expressly give you a right is obfuscation and misdirection.
  • OnAnyMouse, on 10/12/2007, -2/+31Arrest him. He isn't necessarily guaranteed Habeas Corpus.
  • iancgi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17Notice the way he word his responses. "I believe...." "I think...."
    They don't do that by mistake.
  • triddle, on 10/12/2007, -64/+8MORONS - Read the ***** Constitution. Since apparently you are all too retarded/lazy/ignorant/stupid/what ever to find a copy of the damn thing I did it for you.

    "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

    There is no right - rights can't be taken away. It is a privilege - straight from the founding father's mouth.

    Do not pass go, do not collect $200.
    • bullish1, on 10/12/2007, -5/+25Your the MORON!

      Right or privilege doesn't matter. The Constitution still says it can't be taken away.

      Get a brain and stop playing games. The language is very clear.
    • heaintheavy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14Aren't you the type that was blasting Clinton for what the definition of "is" is?

      You might as well say, "well, it is a piece of paper, and since you can't really be guaranteed anything by a piece of inanimate paper, then the Constitution doesn't matter."
    • Nougat, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13And yet, regardless of what you call it, the Constitution declares that it shall not be suspended except during rebellion or invasion - neither of which have occurred.

      Not yet, at least. Keep it up, and there might be a rebellion.
    • flizzomynizzo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12A privilege is certainly a "right with conditions," but the Constitution stipulates exactly the conditions under which that privilege can be revoked!
    • Gerz1219, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13The clear implication is that habeas corpus can *only* be suspended during brief periods of civil unrest -- that's why there's an explicit reference to rebellion and invasion. The wording is only there to provide a legal framework for declaring martial law in the most dire circumstances, and it wasn't even invoked during the British invasion of 1812.

      Mr. Gonzales's position, no doubt, would be that since we're in a state of war, blah blah blah. This is ***** because the "war on terror" is a perpetual war that can't be definitively won. He is therefore arguing that this "privilege" should be indefinitely denied, when any reasonable interpretation of the Constitution states that such denial should be temporary and rare. Gonzales is a disgrace to his country and a traitor to the spirit of the Constitution. He should just step aside as Attorney General if he holds the document he's sworn to protect in such contempt.
    • FTLJohnson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Rebellion? Nope... Invasion? Nope... Public Safety requires it? Nope. No one is going to die if these guys get a trial while held in captivity

      Would suspending Habeus Corpus EVER be JUST in this day and age where a trial can pretty much always be held? Nope, of course not.

      So, the fact that it is a privilege versus a right means very little in this case... certainly not worthy of such an outburst... What happened to the peaceful protestor? You've turned to screaming and calling people morons? That's my job. You go back to building costumes.
    • JahRage, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Not to mention that fact the the "War on terror" isn't a real real war. Congress has not declared war on terror, its just words. Look how the war on drugs is working out. It seems clear to me that these people WANT rebellion. Also, don't be fooled, the Dems have made it clear that they will be no help. These ***** took oaths to defend the constitution and they are ***** on it. Case closed isn't it? Am I wrong?
    • Smoove, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3"Public Safety requires it? Nope. "

      Who gets to say what public safety requires? Oh, that's right--the government. Folks like Bush and, um, what's his name... Gonzalez. So I'm afraid you lose. We all lose.
    • Homerr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5"Your the MORON!"

      Apparently you're a MORON too.
    • faskippy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1You are a ***** moron. You are a ***** moron. You are a ***** moron. Still isn't enough...
    • Nougat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You guys thinking that there are three cases where the constitution provides for suspension of habeas - you're wrong, read it again. "...unless WHEN in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

      So, not only does there need to be either an invasion or a rebellion, but suspension of habeas during those times must be required for the public safety. In other words, if there's a rebellion or an invasion, and the public safety does not require suspension of habeas - or if suspension of habeas would not affect the public safety if the public safety is affected - then habeas may not be suspended.

      That "public safety" part is an additional prerequisite to suspension of habeas, not a third situation where it may be suspended, separate from rebellion or invasion.
  • edrift101, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17Is Gonzales even a citizen?!?

    Seriously, we need to have this guy removed. And if we can swing it, tarred and feathered on the White House lawn as well. Rubber stamping every illegal and unconstitutional thing that Bush brings his way needs to have some sort of repercussion.
    • halavais, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5That comment ends up sounding really racist. Is that what you intended?
    • enharmonix, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2@halavais: "All Animals Are Equal, But Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others." George Orwell, Animal Farm

      To think this used to be the party JFK belonged to...
    • ryanissuper, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@enharmonix
      Either I'm reading it wrongly or your comment doesn't make sense. JFK was a democrat.
    • enharmonix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ryan: No, edrift said "Is Gonzales even a citizen?" to which halavais responded "That sounded really racist..." edrift is at +13 and halavais is at -1 (as of this comment), which tells me enough about how the diggers who voted on these comments think. It reminded me of Animal Farm because I used think the dems were okay (I mean, JFK was a Democrat, and he was one of our best presidents), but when leftists make racial slurs about people like Gonzales (is he a citizen), Powell ("uncle Tom"), etc., I can see that they are not the champions of civil rights they pretend to be. Apparently, equal rights and tolerance don't apply to people with (R) at the end of their names. It's sickening, and it's NOT the party JFK belonged to... sadly, if somebody with his principles came along today, I don't think he'd be welcome by *either* party. Shameful.
  • garoo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6*thanks God once again he doesn't live in the US*
  • trubbleshute, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Heh, its like Griswold v CT, privacy isn't enumerated in the bill of rights but we can safely imply that we have a right to it (unenumerated)
  • ray901, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16Oh so now everyone gets pissed off - where were you guys when my rights (legal immigrant) to Habeas Corpus were stripped from me? (yeah I know you will digg me down, but it really had to be said)
    • Maarek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I was bitching about it then too. It hurts us all, be it native born or immigrant.
    • an0nymous, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Yeah, check the comments in the very first Digg Entries about Habeus Corpus.. sadly, we've been pissed off for years.
  • Szat, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1*retard alert*
    • Smoove, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Thanks for warning us, retard. Do you also shout that when you're running down the hall with scissors?
  • cuddleparty, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11this is sickening. the constitution is disappearing, i'm worried. aren't you? you should be. the general public is ignorant to that fact and it pisses me off even more when they label someone who is a tad bit concerned as a member of the tinfoil hat brigade.
    • xtmno3, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I am worried, but mostly because I might have to move to a different country some day. I love the ideas this country was started with, but as time goes on, it is becoming its own worst enemy. The freedoms fought for by the generations before us are being completely handed away by the recent and current ones.

      I want to vote for the right people, and do the right things, but a member of the United States, I have to understand that those around me have equal right to vote for who they want. This is all fine and dandy, and the country as a whole can do what it wants, but at some point I feel I will get too angry at the lack of intelligence in a lot of matters to continue living here.

      I love this country, and many of the people in it, but it is like an apple with a rotten core. We need to excise the core, and make America great again.

      I know this quote has been thrown out before, but those who are willing to give up freedom for temporary safety deserve neither freedom nor safety (B. Franklin). Our country is too caught up in the effort to restrict freedoms instead of the effort to grant them.
    • kuzotz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'm leaving if congress, and the president allows for the Civil Rights Act to expire, and never renew it. That's when I'm leaving. I'm black, and once I lose my right to vote because a act expired. Then it shows how pathetic this country is. I'm not even going to hesitate. I'll head to Dallas, and give my residency app. to the Canadian consulate. Then get the first plane out of the US.
  • uberdesigner, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21I want my ***** country back.
    • naldwell, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13Well, you better get on that quick or that other bit of the constitution, the right to protect yourself from an oppressive federal government will be next.

      I live in New Zealand, and the stink from your country is almost unbearable here. I don't know how you cope...
    • OnAnyMouse, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1And that bit prohibiting bills of attainder.

      Congress has declared you worthy of death. No judge, no jury, no trial. Just die.
    • YoDiggity2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2::sigh:: New Zealand

      I plan on moving there as soon as I am able to. It's the least corrupt country in the world:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index

      I hear the internet speeds aren't that great though...
  • rtini, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11The article headline misquotes Gonzales. He correctly states that the constitution doesn't expressly grant the right to habeas corpus, only that it states that it can't be taken away. He's being a weasel, and he summarily gets called on it. Since the constitution says it can't be taken away, it logically follows that we have it. To argue otherwise makes you look like a, uh, Gonzales.

    I think this guy is a jerk, but there is no need to misquote him to resist his pathetic attempts at chipping away our civil liberties.
    • caketank, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10The entire thrust of his argument is that because the Constitution doesn't "explicitly grant" the right of habeas corpus, you may or may not have it. He *is* therefore claiming that there's no constitutional right of habeas corpus, which is spectacularly, alarmingly wrong.
    • geekwithsoul, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"To argue otherwise makes you look like a, uh, Gonzales."

      Sounds like "pulling a Homer" or "wiping off the Santorum" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_%28sexual_slang%29]

      I think we need to do the same that was done for Santorum, and come up with a definition for 'Gonzales' that will make his name unutterable without snickering. Any takers?
    • lovek, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1bury me
  • tenrec, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I don't see what all the excitement is about. Harriet Miers probably agrees with him.
  • IntoTheWired, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4THIS guy is the head of law in this land?

    He's got zero reading comprehension skills!

    Jesus Jumped-up Christ, what the hell is going on here?
  • lagrange, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Go to sleep. American Idol will be back soon friend.
    • Nougat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Who are you kidding? Idol is already back! The auditions have been great!
    • Maarek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5... we are the puppet people... put it on TV, it's true.

      Wow...Bill Hicks...still right 13 years later. Just replace "Gladiators" with "Idol" and the bit still works.
  • arcticJKL, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Last time I checked the US Constitution granted no rights what so ever. They were 'endowed by our creator.'
    When governments can give 'rights' they can take them away.
    • caketank, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Exactly-- I was just about to post to the same effect. Gonzales is right that the Constitution doesn't grant the right of habeas corpus, but he's dead wrong about what that means. We do have that right. The Constitution does explicitly describe when it can be suspended, but that ain't now.
    • andrewgreene, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Hold on there, Tex. The Declaration of Independence states that all men are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights.

      And one of the great things about the Constitution is that it makes it very difficult to change it. Any benevolent dictator that decides that they want to take away something from the Constitution is going to have a legal nightmare on their hands -- and if they're lucky they'll only have a small mob gathered outside with their torches and pitchforks.
    • FTLJohnson, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Ah... Caketank again... and I'll ASK again...... since people just don't seem to get this...
      Do you even understand that it's the "writ of habeas corpus" and not the RIGHT of Habeus Corpus?

      Do you understand the differences between a right and a privilege?

      Not that I support Gonzalez... He's a jackass... but going around calling it a right is just plain ignorant.
    • caketank, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@FTLJohnson:

      Obtaining a writ of habeas corpus is a privilege whose existence is presumed by the Constitution, and is protected by the Constitution except where it explicitly allows for suspension (in very narrow circumstances which are clearly described).

      For all practical purposes, it is a *right*. We don't run around talking about the "privilege of the writ of habeas corpus" because that phrase is unwieldy and implies that we may obtain a writ of habeas corpus at the pleasure of the government. We use the phrase "right of habeas corpus" because it's shorter and because it (correctly) implies Constitutional protection.

      If it makes you feel superior to assume that I and others don't know what the word "writ" means, or have confused it for "right", you're welcome to do so. You come off as a pedantic, arrogant ***** who's missing the damn point, and that's why you're ignored and dugg down, but knock yourself out.
    • lovek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I find it funny that anyone would ever argue that the Constitution is worded in such a way as to take away or not allow basic rights, privileges, or freedoms for no apparent reason.

      It's goes against the entire reason the country was founded in the first place.
    • lovek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@FTLJohnson

      Yeah, jeez.

      A RIGHT of habeas corpus means that habeas corpus must be allowed to you according to basic human morals.
      A WRIT of habeas corpus means that habeas corpus must be allowed to you according to the government of the United States.

      DUH!
      It's totally different in the eyes of the government.. somehow... I'm sure....

      (/sarcasm)


      (Also... yeah, I somehow missed that this was basically already said). Bury me at will.
    • FTLJohnson, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Hey stupids... There is NO condition under which a RIGHT can EVER be taken away... EVER.

      Thus, habeus corpus is NOT A RIGHT. No matter how much you want to call it one. Calling it one simply is one of this ***** political tactics used to confuse an issue....

      I'm not going to side with Gonzalez, but I sure as ***** ain't gonna side with ignorance either.

      "A RIGHT of habeas corpus means that habeas corpus must be allowed to you according to basic human morals.
      A WRIT of habeas corpus means that habeas corpus must be allowed to you according to the government of the United States."

      Except for that whole big ***** part after the word UNLESS. Hrm... that seems to be pretty major.. I don't see the word UNLESS appearing in the Bill of Rights.
    • FTLJohnson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Ironically enough... It DOES appear in the bill of rights... dealing with the SAME damn issue.

      Amendment V
      No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
  • buzneg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5your life is a privilege, so is driving on the road, we should all thank the good government for letting us drive on their roads.
    • r4NGe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Im hoping that is sarcasm but I just can't tell.
  • writerboyVSgod, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Specter owned him.
    • hode, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3With a capital P.
    • mcraigw, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4
      But... Arlen Specter is a Republican... how could this be?
    • an0nymous, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Arlen is secretly a good guy. He just caves easy. When he was head of the judiciary committee he warned Bush not to choose Supreme Court nominees with the goal of overturning abortion. He was then forced to eat dirt in the playground during recess. Sad. Good instincts but easily compromised.
  • polypropglop, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11And Bush was going to nominate this guy for the Supreme Court? ><

    • baxtermaddux, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6if it weren't for this democratic congress, i would ***** SHUDDER to think of how dark these next two years would be
  • repins, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Habeas Corpus is not a RIGHT, it is a power of a court referred to as a privilege because you can suspend privileges, RIGHTS cannot be suspended (well mostly given the acts of the Government in last 75 years) They are both wrong, but I agree that Habeas Corpus should only be suspended under the most dire of circumstances.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus
    "A writ of habeas corpus is a court order addressed to a prison official (or other custodian) ordering that a prisoner be brought before the court for determination of whether that person is serving a lawful sentence and/or whether he or she should be released from custody. The writ of habeas corpus in common law countries is an important instrument for the safeguarding of individual freedom against arbitrary state action."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus#United_States
    "The writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum is a civil, not criminal, proceeding in which a court inquires as to the legitimacy of a prisoner's custody."

    Section. 9. Clause 2 Clause 2: The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.


    -There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  • thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7A'ight, I'll be the first to admit... bush needs to get rid of that *****... Even if he is doing as the President wishes, that's just ***** stupid. Any shred of ethics he had should have been used to stand up and say "no". And if the President still pushed for it, he should have resigned.
  • quickgold192, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4As a side note, they were trying to apply the Constitution to Guantanamo Bay. Unfortunately for the detainees, the American Constitution only applies to American citizens.
    • spurtle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6So the spreading of "freedom" we keep saying when we meddle in other coutries' affairs is just a crock of *****?
    • caketank, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11I really don't know where people get this *****. Do you just make it up, or did some other fool teach it to you?

      The Constitution recognizes universal rights, and protects them universally from US governments, except where explicitly noted.
    • an0nymous, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Yes, I am curious where the "it only applies to Government/Citizen" fallacy came about.
      By this argument legal immigrants are entitled to... nothing?
      Who made this up? It's recent, I know that much.
    • jgbiggs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Wrong. The United States Constitution only applies to the United States government. The document limits the powers the goverment has and leaves the rest to "The People."

    • arcticJKL, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Unfortunately some interesting wording in the 14th "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." uses person.

      Some have interpreted this to mean all people, in the US, out of the US, citizen, visitor, enemy airborne units, illegal aliens, passengers flying over etc, are protected the same as US citizens.

      Of course it is only worded that way to prevent tricks to classify slaves,ex-slaves and former rebels as non-citizens.
  • Leviathan777, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Gonzales is what, 5th or 6th in the line of presidential succession? Impeach this freedom-hating ***** now.
  • TorgoIsBurning, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7this is straight up *****. although it should be a laff watching the neocons trying to spin their way out of this one. oh to be a fly on the wall at fox news right about now.
    • thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Something tells me that they are going to lambaste this.

      Or, at least they SHOULD.
    • TorgoIsBurning, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1so this happened like yesterday and still nobody else has picked up on it? wtf?
  • MaximusIGN, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Jeez...This is the guy that's suppose to be ensuring and protecting the rights of Americans?
  • earthtoandy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1oops
  • spyd3rweb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2These people are prodding the sleeping giant of america constantly, but never enough to wake him up. ITS TIME TO SET OFF AMERICA'S ALARM CLOCK, and unleash a hellstorm on those who attempt to take away freedoms.
  • andrew1193, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4I'm amused when the "progressives" over at "Think Progress" pretend to respect the Constitution.
  • Drakk0n, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I can't beelieve the words coming out of Gonzales' mouth. What sorta lawyer questions the "right" of habeus?
    I really wish there was a fuller transcript or clip of this back and forth as Specter shurly didnt just ask his questions straight out and there had to be more after the "um..." I knew they were shady but being as shady as this....to redefine years of american thinking...is just ludacrious.
    • faskippy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I wonder just what kind of practice he was involved in in Texas. Ever fight any criminal cases? Surely he depended on the phrase, "a right to habeus corpus" in his practice somewhere? What a friggin' asswipe.
  • davymac, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2He makes me ashamed that I share his last name (moms side)
    • baxtermaddux, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4he makes me ashamed that we are both air breathing humans. he gives us all a bad name. he is our missing primate link.
  • UrbanVoyeur, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Alberto is a dangerous tool. If only we had a Supreme Court worth damn, we might stand a chance.

    As it is, too few people in the general public understand or care enough about these issues to make a determined stand. The imperial presidency marches on.
  • mad1stl, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3I wonder how many times we are gonna let thes guys wipe their asses with the consitution before they finally flush.
  • firepig, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Contrary to popular belief many people on Digg are not children. Don't expect most of us to buy this ridiculous tactic of deflecting criticism by steering the conversation to criticism of someone else (Think Progress in this case).

    The subject here is Gonzales and how he is a threat to freedom based on his words and deeds. Whatever sins Think Progress has committed are totally irrelevant.

    The words in this story and Gonzales' past justification for violating the Geneva Convention on prisoners of war constitute sufficient evidence for his immediate removal from office.

    By the way, don't you just love how Bush supporters want to have it both ways. This is war, so the Constitution doesn't apply. These guys are not prisoners of war, so the Geneva Convention doesn't apply.
  • SaintStryfe, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2In 1649
    To St George's Hill
    A ragged band they called the Diggers
    Came to show the people' s will
    They defied the landlords
    They defied the laws
    They were the dispossessed
    Reclaiming what was theirs

    We come in peace, they said
    To dig and sow
    We come to work the land in common
    And to make the waste land grow
    This earth divided
    We will make whole
    So it can be
    A common treasury for all.

    The sin of property
    We do disdain
    No one has any right to buy and sell
    The earth for private gain
    By theft and murder
    They took the land
    Now everywhere the walls
    Rise up at their command.

    They make the laws
    To chain us well
    The clergy dazzle us with heaven
    Or they damn us into hell
    We will not worship
    The God they serve
    The God of greed who feeds the rich
    While poor men starve

    We work, we eat together
    We need no swords
    We will not bow to masters
    Or pay rent to the lords
    We are free men
    Though we are poor
    You Diggers all stand up for glory

    Stand up now
    From the men of properall.

    To conquer them by love, come in now, come in now
    To conquer them by love, come in now;
    To conquer them by love, as itt does you behove,
    For hee is King above, noe power is like to love,
    Glory heere, Diggers all.
    and 'gainst Priests, stand up now, stand up now,
    'Gainst lawyers and 'gainst Priests stand up now.
    For tyrants they are both even flatt against their oath,
    To grant us they are loath
    • TorgoIsBurning, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0that's beautiful man but i say we just kick their asses while they're down.
  • VicHislop, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6"How come the main job of the Attorney General whose job it is to pursue major crimes and legal challenges on behalf of the American people has been demoted to a full time Bush defense attorney. Is there a way to remove him for dereliction of duty somehow?

    Comment by dlet — January 19, 2007 @ 11:18 am"

    I would like to know the answer to this question as well.
    • Corvidae, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Any member of the presidential cabinet can be removed by congressional order. Similar to the president himself. The usual practice is to tell the president that their advisor is an idiot, and have the president ask them to resign. It gives the person a chance to leave with some dignity.

      So we're kinda stuck with Gonzales. Bush wouldn't remove him if asked, so he'd have to be removed by congressional order. Congress isn't going to go through the hassle of removing him, because they have bigger problems to deal with. Also they probably expect Gonzales to go down with the ship as the Bush machine falls apart during investigations this year.
    • VicHislop, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@Corvidae

      Thanks, but I was more interested in the part of diet's comment about Gonzales being Bush's personal defense attorney. That's not his job!
  • Hangender, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0Now now, don't be so hard on him. After all he is only a spanish
  • Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Gonzales: a prime candidate for rendition to Egypt. Maybe there he can reflect on habeas corpus while the cops are shoving a stick up his ass.
  • SuspectDevice, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Somebody should try his ass in a military tribunal for treason and the punishment should be no less then a hot poker in the *****.
  • crotchbuffet, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0the only thing older than the constitution in american politics is arlen specter.
  • olik, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@tidu

    "Rights" and "Privileges" were interchangeable when the Constitution was written, and even much later. Notice, the Fourteenth Amendment (the reason that the Bill of Rights is enforceable against the states) used the words "privileges and immunities." Those words were meant to refer to what we would call "rights."

    P.S. I know that is not precisely how it was interpreted, but even the narrow interpretation it got would arguably encompass habeas corpus
    • arcticJKL, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'll have to disagree on that.

      Rights are divinely appointed and can not be removed except in extreme circumstances, such as commiting a capital crime.
      Privileges are those things which people call rights but are granted by the people or state, like education.

      The meaning is lost now but was clear in 1780s.
  • WoodenKimono, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Just another example of how the Constitution is no longer being upheld by our elected officials. This is absolutely blatant disregard for our laws, and Gonzales is smart enough to know that. It is obvious that he is simply trying to interpret the constitution to justify Bush's wishes even if it is in direct opposition to them. He does a disservice to this nation, and the people he is sworn to protect.
  • kcferret, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Ex parte Milligan, McCardle and Merryman explicitly state the "right to petition" for the writ of Habeas Corpus to the courts by US Citizens and that only the leglislative branch not the Executive can suspend habeas corpus

    Reid v. Covert stated that US citizens cannot be denied the right to trial by jury even if they are under "military jurisdiction" or fall under a foreign treaty.

    Rasul v. Bush states " In the end, the answer to the question presented is clear. Petitioners contend that they are being held in federal custody in violation of the laws of the United States.15 No party questions the District Court's jurisdiction over petitioners' custodians. Cf. Braden, 410 U. S., at 495. Section 2241, by its terms, requires nothing more. We therefore hold that §2241 confers on the District Court jurisdiction to hear petitioners' habeas corpus challenges to the legality of their detention at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base."


    The only reason Padilla is still in custody is because of a technicality in his petition for writ. He should have named the S.C. brig commander not Rumsfeld and it should have been submitted to United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. This gave the Bush Administration a second chance and they soon re-0ammended the charges against Padilla from the more serious ones they stated in the first place.

  • Evildudetx, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1Everyone seems to be forgetting one thing - the guys in Gitmo are prisoners of war. Rights and privileges afforded to U.S. citizens do not apply at all.

    Treatment of prisoners of war falls under the articles of the Geneva Convention.

    I didn't take the time to re-read the entire set of articles, but we can hold anyone as a prisoner of war until the hostilities are over.....and they seem to be quite far from it.
    • chadkazulu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Yeah, but the Government doesn't recognize those individuals as POWs... so no Geneva Convention. Who would have guessed that we'd use Viet Cong definitions against our captured enemies.

      Common! Are we the United States of America or some podunk, third-world backwater?
    • Gerz1219, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@Evildudetx -- But if you're going to make an outlandish argument like that, you have to explain two things:

      1) What event would constitute the end of hostilities? A signed peace treaty? With whom? According to Bush, we are not specifically at war with Al-Qaeda, or with Muqtada al-Sadr's Shiite militia, or with the Taliban remnant. Instead, we are at war with "terror", an abstract concept which refers to a wide range of military and psychological tactics. If you want to label the Gitmo detainees prisoners of war, then you also have to define clearly who we are at war with, our goals for victory, and the conditions which must exist for victory to be declared.

      However, by definition, a war against an abstract concept is only over once the concept no longer exists. Which, of course, means that the hostilities will never end, and you are effectively arguing that any brown non-U.S. citizen can be detained arbitrarily and indefinitely by the United States at will, without regard for their human rights.

      2) If the Gitmo detainees are indeed prisoners of war, then they are entitled to humane treatment under the Geneva Conventions. But then people like you simultaneously argue that they are not subject to the Geneva Conventions, because enemy combatants aren't recognized as a nation-state. Well, which is it? If they aren't subject to the Geneva Conventions, then they aren't prisoners of war, which means our detention of them is illegal. Conversely, if they are prisoners of war who can be held without trial indefinitely, then they are also deserving of humane treatment.

      Please explain your inconsistent viewpoints in a manner which 70% of your fellow citizens won't virulently disagree with.
    • arcticJKL, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1They are unlawful combatants. Enemy soldiers who have violated international law regarding armed conflict. They are like the SS troops who dressed as US troops during the Battle of the Bulge...only the Germans were shot after a trial.

      POWs are held for the duration, unlawful combatants are tried and punished.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 81 of 81 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.